Recruiting Caribou Habitat UsingSilviculture Treatments

June 4, 2001

Prepared for the BC Ministry of EnvironmentLands and Parks

Prepared by: Lauren Waters, RPF, L. Waters Ltd.

Rhonda Delong, MSc., Avens Consulting

Funded by:Forest Renewal British Columbia

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the following people and their employers for participating inthe “caribou habitat recruitment workshop”, and providing valuable input:

Tim Arnet, Bob Brade, Stewart Clow, Darwyn Coxson, John Flaa, Susan Hall, BernieHeuvelman, Mike Copperthwaite, Rachel Holt, Kurt Huettmeyer, Michel Knapik,Timothy Layser, Doug Lewis, Ivan Listar, Heather Morgan, Doug Nelson, DieterOfferman, Pat Wadey, Barb Wadey, Del Williams, Heiko Wittmer, Guy Woods, JohnWoods, Terry Wotherspoon and Bill Beard. A list of participants and their affiliation isin Appendix A.

The following people provided assistance and valuable input throughout the project:Bruce McLellan, Mike Rooney, Susan Stevenson, Harold Armleder, Wes Bieber, RandyHarris, Doreen McGillis, Debbie Delong, Val Beard and Derek Millsop.

Thanks to Forest Renewal British Columbia for providing the funding, and the BCMinistry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Habitat Branch, Colene Wood for directingthe project.

Executive Summary

Integrating mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) management and timbermanagement is important in the Revelstoke area because a significant proportion of theallowable annual cut is harvested from old-growth forests, which are critical for caribouhabitat. This has heightened the interest in applying forest management strategies thatcan maintain or simulate old-growth attributes on which the caribou rely.

Silviculture treatments applied to managed stands have the potential to accelerate thedevelopment of habitat attributes preferred by mountain caribou, including abundance ofarboreal lichen and understory falsebox, and open stand structure with some large treesproviding good sight lines and snow interception.

The Minister of Forests Advisory Committee (MAC) land use plan for the RevelstokeTSA requires 40% retention in mature and old-growth forests within areas with highvalue caribou habitat. In response to this requirement, the following goals andmanagement objectives for caribou habitat recruitment using silviculture treatments areproposed:

Overall goals:1. Maintain and supplement the 40% retention target for mature and old forests

in caribou management areas (as laid out in the MAC plan) over time toensure a sustainable supply of suitable habitat for the future.

2. Increase use of later seral stage (i.e., younger than mature) forests bymountain caribou for forage and cover in the Revelstoke TSA.

Management objectives:1. Mimic attributes of mature and old-growth forests in later seral stage forests

favorable to caribou using silviculture techniques (i.e., create open forestswith large trees and complex structure).

2. Accelerate the development of suitable connective habitat for caribou inmanaged forests to facilitate movement between foraging habitats andpredator avoidance.

3. Increase the amount of available lichen for caribou in later seral stage forests.

The purpose of this report is to provide guidance and ecological justification formanagers and silviculture foresters to plan, prescribe, implement and monitor silviculturetreatments, to meet caribou habitat requirements and timber harvesting objectives. Thereport specifically:a) identifies desired attributes of caribou habitat;b) proposes guidelines for ranking and priorizing stands for caribou habitat recruitment;c) suggests specific silviculture treatments to recruit caribou habitat in young forests and

maintain caribou habitat in old-growth forests; andd) proposes using an adaptive management framework for monitoring, refining

guidelines and improving prescriptions for recruiting caribou habitat.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Background ..................................................................................................... 11.2 Objectives........................................................................................................ 21.3 Workshop ........................................................................................................ 21.4 Location .......................................................................................................... 2

2.0 Mountain Caribou and Habitat ............................................................................. 4

2.1 Attributes of preferred mountain caribou habitat................................................... 42.1.1 Canopy Closure .............................................................................................. 52.1.2 Lichen Availability......................................................................................... 52.1.3 Falsebox Availability ..................................................................................... 6

2.2 Limitations of Early Seral Forests......................................................................... 7

3.0 Caribou Habitat Recruitment ........................................................................... 8

3.1 Stand Structural Variability in the Revelstoke TSA ............................................... 83.2 Forest Planning Considerations ............................................................................. 83.3 Management Objectives for Habitat Recruitment................................................... 9

3.3.1 Defining Structural and Stocking Objectives for Caribou Habitat ................... 9

4.0 Proposed Planning and Silvicultural Treatments to Recruit Caribou Habitat .. 11

4.1 Assessment Process ............................................................................................. 124.2 Silviculture Treatments for Second Growth Stands.............................................. 13

4.2.1 Espacement and Species Selection ................................................................ 134.2.2 Spacing......................................................................................................... 144.2.3 Pruning ........................................................................................................ 174.2.4 Commercial Thinning ................................................................................... 17

4.3 Setting Standards for Establishment to Free Growing and for Second GrowthStands (Post-Free Growing) ...................................................................................... 174.4 Silviculture Treatments to Maintain Caribou Habitat in Old Growth.................... 19

4.4.1 Maintaining Caribou Habitat in the ESSF Old Growth ................................. 204.5 Prescription Development................................................................................... 21

4.5.1 Stand Level Decision Tools........................................................................... 214.5.2 Prescriptions ................................................................................................ 21

5.0 Methodology for Ranking Stands for Caribou Habitat Recruitment in theRevelstoke TSA ........................................................................................................... 21

5.1 Landscape Level Criteria ..................................................................................... 225.2 Drainage (Subunit) Level Criteria........................................................................ 22

5.2.1 Landscape and Drainage Level Priorities ..................................................... 235.3 Stand Level Criteria............................................................................................. 24

6.0 Keystone Area Case Study.................................................................................... 25

7.0 Adaptive Management Framework for Caribou Habitat Recruitment in theRevelstoke TSA ........................................................................................................... 26

7.1 Definition of Adaptive Management.................................................................... 267.2 Steps to initiate and set up adaptive management for caribou habitat recruitment. 27

7.2.1 Problem Assessment ..................................................................................... 277.2.2 Design of management plan and operational trials ....................................... 277.2.3 Implementation of management experiment .................................................. 287.2.4 Monitoring.................................................................................................... 287.2.5 Evaluation .................................................................................................... 297.2.6 Adjustment of plan and practices based on new information ......................... 29

8.0 Research and Decision Support Needs ................................................................. 29

8.1 Research and extension databases........................................................................ 308.2 Extension ............................................................................................................ 31

9.0 Recommended Action ........................................................................................... 32

References Cited.......................................................................................................... 33

List of Figures and TablesFigure 1. Location of Study Area - Revelstoke Timber Supply Area - North .................. 3Figure 2. Seasonal Caribou Habitat Use by Elevation..................................................... 5Figure 3: Changes in stand structure following disturbance (Oliver, 1992) ...................... 8Table 1: Forest microhabitat characteristics found at caribou foraging areas stratified by

biogeoclimatic zone. North Columbia Mountains, B.C. 1992-1999. (McLellan andTerry, in press) ...................................................................................................... 10

Table 2. Microhabitat tree characteristics found at caribou foraging areas stratified bybiogeoclimatic zone. North Columbia Mountains, B.C. 1992-1999 (McLellan andTerry, in press). ..................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4. Perspective view of a spaced stand in which attributes that support biodiversityare maintained or enhanced (Taken from Guidelines for Maintaining Biodiversityduring Juvenile Spacing, 1993) ............................................................................. 16

List of Appendices

Appendix A Workshop participants, agenda, questionsAppendix B MAC Plan – Caribou Habitat GuidelinesAppendix C Graphs of number of trees/ha by dbh class (live and dead) found at

caribou foraging areas in the ICH and ESSFAppendix D Further references for preparing prescriptionsAppendix E ESSFvv stocking standardsAppendix F Mountain Caribou in Managed Forests: Recommendations for

Managers – Second Edition, 2001 – Tables 4, 6, 7, 8.Appendix G Table listing available stand level support modelsAppendix H Maps – Caribou telemetry locations map, Minister Advisory

Committee Composite Map, 1999Appendix I Caribou habitat recruitment ranking guidesAppendix J Keystone Area – maps, and list of potential blocks for treatment

1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 BackgroundThe mountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) herd that ranges through MountRevelstoke and Glacier National Parks and the forests north of Revelstoke creates specialchallenges for management in this area. This has heightened the interest in applyingforest management strategies that may simulate the desired old-growth structure thatcaribou rely on for survival. This area supports approximately 400 (Flaa and McLellan inpress) of a total population of 2,400 mountain caribou (Simpson, et al. 1997). This hasled to provincial, national and international interest in their maintenance. Caribou areconsidered an umbrella species; that is, the protection of caribou habitat will also serve toprotect the habitat of many other species dependent on old-growth forests.

Recently the mountain caribou in the Revelstoke area have been provincially red listed,which means they are considered “endangered” by the Committee on the Status ofEndangered Wildlife in Canada (http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/index.htm). It is expectedthat they will also be listed under the Federal Species at Risk Act (Bill C-5 in Parliament).

High use caribou habitat based on telemetry work was mapped and zoned as “CaribouHabitat” in the Revelstoke and Area Land Use Planning Final Recommendations -Minister’s Advisory Committee Plan (MAC Plan 1999). Proposed guidelines are forretention of 40% Age Class 8 or greater (minimum 140 years old) in areas designated ascaribou management areas. This recommendation recognizes that there is a “moderaterisk” to the Revelstoke caribou herd due to habitat loss and fragmentation. (MAC Plan1999) (Appendix B - Caribou habitat requirements.)

Much of the mapped caribou zone within the Revelstoke TSA is already fragmented bythe pattern of large clearcut and leave areas (checkerboard pattern). Many of thesecutblocks are reaching immature forest stages known to contribute to caribou decline inother areas. Retained old growth will soon be interspersed with very dense plantations,the result of intensive, successful planting programs and natural regeneration. Caribouavoid immature to mature stages of forest development. Silvicultural treatments have thepotential to lessen the time that plantations are barriers to caribou movement, andaccelerate stand development of habitat attributes used by mountain caribou includinglichen biomass development, understory falsebox development and snow interception.

The purpose of this report is to provide guidance and ecological justification formanagers and silviculture foresters to plan, prescribe, implement and monitor silviculturetreatments to meet caribou habitat requirements and timber harvesting objectives. Thisinformation should be linked to higher level and land use plans and to any futureLandscape Unit Plans. An adaptive management approach is suggested forimplementation, including a plan for monitoring and a list of further research needs.More information is needed to develop decision support tools to help augment caribouhabitat requirements and retain future options for management.

2

1.2 ObjectivesThe objectives of this report are to:1. Identify attributes of preferred caribou habitat that can be modified or created in

forests using silvicultural treatments. (Section 2)2. Develop guidelines for choosing and ranking second growth stands for caribou

habitat recruitment treatments in the Revelstoke Timber Supply Area (TSA).(Section 5)

3. Propose specific silviculture treatments for recruiting caribou habitat in secondgrowth stands in the Revelstoke TSA. (Section 4)

4. Propose specific silvicultural treatments for maintaining caribou habitat within the oldand mature timber types in the Engelmann Spruce Subalpine Fir (ESSF)biogeoclimatic subzone within the Revelstoke TSA. (Section 4.4)

5. Propose using an adaptive management framework for monitoring and refiningguidelines and improving prescriptions for recruiting caribou habitat in secondgrowth forests in the Revelstoke TSA. (Section 7)

1.3 WorkshopA workshop was held to disseminate the preliminary results of the proposed methodologyto recruit caribou habitat using silviculture treatments. The purpose was to collect inputfrom invited participants on the recommended guidelines and adaptive managementframework. A list of participants, the agenda, and a list of questions that participantswere asked are included in Appendix A. The B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands andParks, the Ministry of Forests, forest licensees, Parks Canada and consultants participatedin this process. The results of the input have been incorporated into this report.

1.4 LocationThe geographic area covered in this report is the Revelstoke portion of the ColumbiaForest District, north of Revelstoke. See Figure 1.

3

Figure 1. Location of Study Area: Revelstoke Timber Supply Area - North

4

The Revelstoke TSA is located within the Selkirk and Monashee Ranges of the ColumbiaMountains (Fig 1). The topography is rugged with steep hillsides and narrow valleys.Elevations range from 475 m to 2700 m. Treeline is at approximately 2000 m. Thelower slopes are within the Interior Cedar Hemlock biogeoclimatic subzones(ICHmw3,wk and vk) which extend from the valley bottom to approximately 1350metres. These forests are dominated by western hemlock, western red cedar, with someEngelmann spruce and a minor amount of Douglas-fir, subalpine fir and white pine. Onzonal sites the understorey shrub and herb layer is dominated by small amounts offalsebox, oval-leaved blueberry, oak fern, one-leaved foamflower and queens cup.

The Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir (ESSF) biogeoclimatic (BEC) zone occurs abovethe ICH at elevations above 1350 m. Between 1350 to 1650 m elevation lies the “VeryWet, Cold Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir subzone (ESSFvc). On zonal sites theforests are dominated by subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce and mountain hemlock. Whiteflowered rhododendron, black huckleberry, oval-leaved blueberry and false azalea are themost common shrubs (Braumandl and Curran 1992).

Above the ESSFvc biogeoclimatic subzone lies the ESSFvv (very wet, very cold)(Braumandl 2001, personal communication). This subzone is characterized by long, coldwinters with a high snow cover, and short, cool summers. However, the ESSFvv is notdelineated due to mapping limitations. Above this subzone lies the Very Wet, ColdParkland Engelmann Spruce – Subalpine Fir (ESSFvcp) subzone. This zone is above theoperable forest land base.

2.0 Mountain Caribou Habitat

2.1 Attributes of preferred mountain caribou habitatMountain caribou make elevation movements in response to factors such as snowconditions, forage availability, and predation pressure. During the early winter thecaribou use the ICH subzones and move up through the ESSF in the late winter to theupper ESSF and the ESSF parkland (See Figure 2). They consistently show a preferencefor old forests and an avoidance of young forests, especially during winter (Stevenson etal. 2001).

Suitable winter habitat for mountain caribou has characteristics of old forests (at least 140years) including abundant arboreal lichens. Forests managed under any silviculturalsystem that eventually eliminates, or substantially reduces, the number of large, old,lichen-bearing trees will not provide winter habitat for caribou (Stevenson et al. 2001).

During the early winter, caribou show a preference on broad landscapes for lowelevations in the ICH, and gentle terrain. On a finer scale they prefer old westernhemlock leading stands, and high canopy closure for cover and snow interception.Arboreal lichens on standing and windthrown trees, lichen litterfall, and falsebox areimportant food sources for caribou during early winter (Terry et al. 2000).

5

During late winter, caribou prefer high elevations (ESSFvc, vv, vcp), old spruce andsubalpine fir stands, low canopy closure (usually attributed to low site productivity), andgentle terrain. They prefer feeding on the arboreal lichen on subalpine fir to that ofspruce and mountain hemlock (Apps et al. in press).

In the summer, caribou prefer higher elevations, old subalpine fir leading forest cover,and gentle terrain. In the spring, caribou are found in open avalanche paths, recent clearcuts and old forests at low elevations.

Figure 2. Seasonal Caribou Habitat Use by Elevation (McLellan and Flaa unpublished)

2.1.1 Canopy Closure

As described in Armleder and Waterhouse (1994), old stands provide thermal benefitsand superior snow interception due to their multi-layered structure and deep spreadingcrowns of older trees. They also provide lichen litter fall and pockets of available foragesuch as falsebox.

2.1.2 Lichen Availability

There are at least thirteen species of epiphytic arboreal hair lichen within the winter rangeof mountain caribou: ten species of Bryoria, two of Nodobryoria and one species ofAlectoria (Goward 2001). During the winter, mountain caribou feed almost exclusively

6

on arboreal lichens, and chose Bryoria over Alectoria (Stevenson & Hatler 1985;Antifeau 1987; Rominger, Robbins & Evans 1996).

The distribution and abundance of arboreal lichens in forest stands is intimatelyconnected with the structure of those stands. In the upper canopy, lichen receives morelight, rain and snow, and greater ventilation, leading to rapid drying. Hence there isusually more Bryoria in the upper canopy. The lower canopy receives less light, and canstay wet for prolonged periods due to higher humidity and stiller air, resulting in moreAlectoria lichen (Stevenson et al. 2001).

In the high elevation ESSF stands, Goward (2001) has recognized three vertical zones ofBryoria abundance in the canopies. Zone A is restricted to the basal portion of the trees,often extending 2 to 5 meters above the ground. Here, hair lichen loadings are negligible,probably as a result of prolonged wetting due to the heavy winter snow packs. Zone B isabove Zone A, and supports negligible to heavy Bryoria loading. Zone C, which is aboveZone B at the top of the tree, is the region of maximum Bryoria abundance, which benefitfrom exposure to high levels of ventilation. Heavy loadings within Zone B depend oncopious litterfall from Zone C (Goward 2001). Bryoria abundance is significantly higheron the branches of trees growing in clumps than on isolated trees within the same stand(Campbell and Coxson, in press).

In the lower elevation ICH stands, the canopy is more closed, mature trees are taller, andthe wind is generally more moderate than in the ESSF. Therefore, the zone of still airand higher humidity extends further into the canopy. In the lower canopy, Alectoria isoften dominant.

Wind is the primary mode of dispersal for both Alectoria and Bryoria, and the tallesttrees in a stand are especially important as dispersal sources. They supportdisproportionately high lichen biomass, and the distance that wind-borne thallusfragments travel increases with the height of its release point (Stevenson et al. 2001).

Many studies confirm that old-growth forests have more abundant, diverse and variablelichen communities than younger stands (Enns et al. 1999; Goward 1998; Stevenson1998; Neitlich et al. 1997). Although lichen colonizes trees at early ages, it does notusually achieve appreciable biomass until much later. Goward (1998) proposes that therelationship between lichen abundance and the foliated versus unfoliated branches is veryimportant. Wide crowns and large branches of open grown old-growth trees provide aninner drying cone and increased ventilation, allowing the development of very highlichen biomass. Observations indicate that Bryoria biomass is much heavier in thedefoliated zone than in the foliated zone, probably due to prolonged wetting in thefoliated zone.

2.1.3 Falsebox Availability

During the early winter, caribou consume evergreen shrubs such as falsebox (Pachistimamyrsinites) along with arboreal lichen. Although Rominger et al. (2000) suggestedfalsebox is not a preferred forage item while arboreal lichens are available on

7

windthrown trees, McLellan and Terry’s (in press) work indicate that falsebox is heavilyused as an alternative food source.

Falsebox1 is a shrub that occurs from British Columbia south into California and Mexicoand east through the Rocky Mountains. In British Columbia it occurs between 500 and1500 m elevation. It is a native, cool-season, evergreen shrub, whose stems can layer androot, and can be propagated easily through stem cuttings. Seeds are dispersed by gravity.Falsebox grows on dry to moist sites in shaded mountain areas. It occurs on well drained,shallow and a variety of soils; in BC it occurs on podzols and regosols. It is a climaxshrub and can tolerate both sun and shade, but it usually indicates dry to moist, cool sitesand well-drained soils.

Following fire, falsebox can sprout from buds on the taproot, or from the root crown.Some seedling establishment via short-term viability seed stored on site may also occur.(U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, FireSciences Laboratory 2001).

Within the Revelstoke TSA, falsebox is found with coverage of greater than 10% almostexclusively in the ICHwk-04, primarily on subxeric sites (but with a number of sites withsubmesic or xeric), often on warm aspects and with variable overstory canopy closureand stand age. There has been only one stand sampled in the ICHvk1-03 (submesic) andICHwk-01 that had over 10% falsebox (Braumandl, T. personal communication).Falsebox is considered important forage for caribou as well as deer, elk, and moose. Ingeneral, production seems to increase in logged areas.

Rominger et al. (2000) studied the nutrient content of falsebox; their findings indicatethat falsebox grown in the open (in young clearcuts) is not as digestible as that foundunderneath an old-growth canopy. This is due in part to higher levels of phenolics andtannins. Tannins have an inhibitory influence on both protein and dry matter digestibilityin ruminants (Rominger et al. 2000). Also, foliar concentrations of nitrogen,phosphorous and potassium are generally higher when grown in lower light levels than inthe open clear cuts, probably as a result of reduced carbon fixation (Van Horne et al.1988). The combined effects of lower concentrations of nitrogen and higherconcentrations of tannins result in an overall halving of the concentration of digestibleprotein in the leaves growing in clearcuts relative to those growing in the forests (Hanleyet al. 1987).

2.2 Limitations of Early Seral ForestsCaribou prefer open stands that permit easy movement and good sight lines for predatoravoidance. Silvicultural systems or treatments within or adjacent to caribou range shouldnot enhance deer or moose habitat. The proximity of these early successional stands toretained old-growth caribou habitat can increase the vulnerability of caribou to predation.This increased risk of predation combined with low calf production can result inpopulation declines.

1 Other common names are: boxwood, mountain box, myrtle bush, boxleaf, and Oregon boxwood.

8

3.0 Caribou Habitat Recruitment

3.1 Stand Structural Variability in the Revelstoke TSAFifty six percent (56%) of the stands in the operable land base within the Revelstoke TSAare over 140 years old, while 23% are less than 20 years old; 15% are between 21 and100 years; and just over 28% of the stands are older than 250 years (MOF - TSR, 1999).Timber harvesting will continue to reduce the amount of old growth and increase thequantity of young stands. Many of these stands are within the stand initiation or stemexclusion phase of structural development (See Figure 3). Timber management tends tosimplify forests and reduce biodiversity (Carey et al. 1996).

Figure 3: Changes in stand structure following disturbance (Oliver 1992)

The purpose of the silvicultural treatments to recruit caribou habitat is to place the standon a trajectory towards developing old-growth characteristics sooner than withouttreatment. It is important to manage stands where a range of objectives can be met,including caribou habitat recruitment, timber production, and biodiversity.

3.2 Forest Planning ConsiderationsThere must be a connection between forest management landscape level objectives andstand level silviculture objectives. A comprehensive forest management strategy isrequired to make rational choices of stand level treatments. Silvicultural regimes shouldfoster densities and pattern of trees that maintain, enhance or recruit critical habitats(Guidelines for Stand Density Management Regimes 1999).

Studies by Oliver (1992) propose that maintaining populations of wildlife species bymanaging for each species individually is impossible. Rather, we manage forbiodiversity by maintaining the habitat, forest structures and attributes where thesespecies are found. The solution lies at the landscape level where diverse structures andpatterns across the landscape can be maintained for a diversity of plants and animals.Biodiversity can only effectively be promoted in forest structure at the landscape level,where the balance of stands in diverse structures and patterns can be maintained for adiversity of plants and animals. Managed forests don’t have the same stand structure thatlarge areas of naturally forested areas have. Therefore, the most feasible method of

9

maintaining diversity in managed forests is to use silviculture treatments to maintain atarget distribution of structures across a landscape at any given time.

3.3 Management Objectives for Habitat RecruitmentThe Revelstoke and Area Land Use Planning Recommendations (MAC Plan 1999) states:“Within the ICH caribou habitat zone a minimum of 40% of the landbase (below 1994operability line) will be in age class 8 or older (>140 years), with _ of this area havingage class 9 (>250 years) forests. Within the ESSF caribou habitat zone, two optionsexist: 1) A minimum of 30% of the landbase must have forest in age class 8 or older,with at least 1/3 of this area having age class 9 forests and on an additional 20% of thelandbase, partial cutting is acceptable so long as the removal of timber will not exceed35%, with green-up defined as age class 7 or greater; or 2) A minimum of 40 % of thelandbase must have forests in age class 8 or older, with at least one quarter of this havingage class 9 forests”. (See Appendix B).

As insurance to cover natural losses of older forests, it is necessary to augment this targetretention. An objective to develop a certain amount of habitat per time period (i.e., perdecade) needs to be defined. The amount of habitat should be based on historical losses,acceptable risk, ecological consideration, and an estimated success factor for recruitmenttreatments. A second objective for recruiting caribou habitat is to reduce the impacts ofhabitat fragmentation, by managing stands to encourage caribou movement, as well asgrowth and availability of lichen and falsebox.

Silviculture treatments may be able to increase the rate of stand development towardssuitable caribou habitat, in conjunction with natural processes. Studies indicate thatmanaged forests have the potential to provide the building blocks for a landscape with thecapability of providing for the needs of late-succession dependent wildlife. They canprovide the diversity, structure, and function that mimic, and suggest the capacity of, old-growth forests (Carey et al, 1996, Bailey, 1996). However, “no stand or densitymanagement treatment can possibly meet the needs of all wildlife species through allstages of stand development” (Guidelines for Stand Density Management Regimes,1999).

Management cannot create “old growth”. “We cannot produce old growth from secondgrowth because old growth develops under unique ecological, climatic and disturbanceregimes that we cannot hope to duplicate. It varies in age, geomorphic location, structureand organization. In other words, there is no single entity “old growth”: old growth is acollection of various forest ecosystems that developed over periods of 200 –1,000 yearsfrom various biotic communities, under various climatic regimes, and in differentphysiographic provinces.” (Carey et al., 1996). Using silviculture treatments to recruitcaribou habitat should be attempted in recognition of this ecological limitation.

3.3.1 Defining Structural and Stocking Objectives for Caribou Habitat

Silviculture treatments can create a variety of desired stand structures. It is important toclearly define the specific objectives that the silviculture treatment is trying to achieve.

10

Appendix B lists general stand level management objectives and silvicultural strategiesfor caribou winter habitat taken from the MAC Plan (1999). These are intended to guideforest management operations and should be considered when developing silviculturalprescriptions within caribou habitat.

The attributes of caribou habitat described in Section 2.0 indicate that “old growthness” isimportant. However, defining the characteristics of that “old growthness” in aquantifiable manner is difficult. There has been little work to date on determiningmethods of assessing old-growth forests in the Biogeoclimatic subzones within theRevelstoke TSA (ICHwk, vk, mw3 or in the ESSFvc, vv). There has been some workdone by Holt and Braumandl (1999), and Quesnel (1996) on the drier BEC subzoneswithin the Nelson Forest Region. Assessment and characterization of old-growth standsin the Nelson Forest Region conducted by Quesnel (1996) indicates that within the wetterICH (wk, vk) there needs to be a minimum of 60 stems/hectare greater than 50 cm dbh tomeet “old-growth criteria”. On zonal sites within the ICHwk there were approximately20% snags (dead useless and dead potential), 50% suspect (includes stems with dead andbroken tops, or scars, forks, crooks, conks) and 30% were healthy.

The following information lists the microhabitat characteristics found at caribou foragingareas north of Revelstoke. Refer to Appendix C for graphs of stems/ha by species (liveand dead) and by diameter class, found at caribou foraging areas in the ICH and ESSF.

Table 1: Forest microhabitat characteristics found at caribou foraging areasstratified by biogeoclimatic zone. North Columbia Mountains, B.C. 1992-1999.(McLellan and Terry in press)

Variable ICH ESSFvc ESSFvcpLive tree density (stems/ha)1 503 557 415Snag tree density (stems/ha)1 97 81 53Total tree density (stems/ha)1 601 638 468Live basal area (m2/ha) 37 35 19Snag basal area (m2/ha) 5 5 1Total basal area (m2/ha) 42 40 20% Western Hemlock 44 26 0.0% Western Red Cedar 25 6 0.0% Engelmann Spruce 6 23 8% Subalpine fir 7 33 91% Other 13 11 1 Average DBH (cm) 35 28 27% Slope 35 32 21Lichen abundance2 0.389 0.684 -% Bryoria 27 66 -Note: Data are from fixed area (0.01 ha) plots except basal area.1Stems/ha is for stems over 7 cm dbh. 2Number 10 g clumps.

11

Table 2. Microhabitat tree characteristics found at caribou foraging areas stratifiedby biogeoclimatic zone. North Columbia Mountains, B.C. 1992-1999. (McLellanand Terry in press)

BEC Subzone Total Stems/ha Live Stems/ha Dead Stems/haOver 19 cm dbh Over 50

cm dbhOver 19cm dbh

Over 50cm dbh

Over 19cm dbh

Over 50cm dbh

ICH(mw3,wk,vk) 319Hw5Cw2F08(Ba,Se,Pw)

102 272 83 47 19

ESSF(vc, vcp) 287Bl6Hm1S1Hw1

47 252 37 35 10

A list of desired stand attributes was derived from the above information.

Desired stand attributes for caribou habitat include:• Multi-storied canopy consisting of a range of tree species, ages and sizes.• Diameter and species distribution similar to graphs in Appendix C.• In the ICH and ESSF manage for approximately 300 sph at age 140 years +.• Large-diameter standing snags and fallen logs: ICH - minimum 30 snags/ha, with

10/ha over 50 cm dbh; ESSF – minimum 25 snags/ha, with 5/ha over 50 cm dbh.• Diverse understory including falsebox for caribou forage in the early winter, in ICH

habitat.• Heavy Alectoria and Bryoria lichen loads that are available to caribou, either by

foraging directly on the tree, litterfall or wind blown trees.

4.0 Proposed Planning and Silvicultural Treatments to Recruit CaribouHabitat

Efforts to rehabilitate caribou habitat after clearcutting have met with limited success.Therefore, it is better to use partial cutting where feasible and retain caribou habitatfeatures rather than clearcutting and attempting restoration. On areas recently clearcut, itmay take many decades to establish even modest lichen-bearing habitat, and it may takemore than a hundred years for enough lichen biomass to re-establish to be useful tocaribou (Stevenson, et al. 2000).

Silvicultural treatments have the potential to reduce the amount of time that plantationsare barriers to caribou movement. They may also accelerate stand development of habitatattributes used by mountain caribou including lichen biomass, falsebox understory andsnow interception. Silvicultural systems need to maintain falsebox in the understory(McLellan and Terry in press) and maintain or increase the lichen abundance in caribouhabitat. “Protecting gaps, hardwoods, wolf trees, and old-growth remnant trees duringthinning or other partial cutting is likely to promote the majority of epiphyticmacrolichens in young conifer forests.” (Neitlich and McCune 1997).

The proposed silvicultural treatments in this section will require a considerable amount oftime for the stand to develop the desired attributes, and stands may need repeated entriesto recruit preferred caribou habitat.

12

4.1 Assessment ProcessIt is important to determine which stands within the landscape need silviculture treatmentto encourage growth and to put them on a trajectory towards old growth sooner thanwithout treatment. Section 3.0 states the structural attributes that we need to manage for,Section 5.0 deals with the methodology for ranking stands for treatment, and this sectionproposes specific silviculture treatments.

Once the blocks have been field reviewed, a minimum of two (and preferably three)different types of treatments should be established, in addition to a control. The intentionis to monitor these treatments for several decades to determine if they are meeting themanagement objectives. See Section 7.0 for details on adaptive management.

This section proposes silvicultural treatments for three broad categories of stand ages,with corresponding management objectives:

1) Young Stands: Aged 20 – 50 years: Improve sight lines, make the stand moreopen with large crowned trees and reduce potential habitat connectivity issues.Treatment should set the stand up for commercial thinning and/or future selectionharvesting, while increasing development and value of caribou habitat.

2) Older Stands: Aged 50 – 140 years: Manage for and encourage late seral standattributes to recruit caribou habitat sooner than without treatment, includingrecruitment of snags.

3) Old Growth (140 yrs +): Recommend silvicultural treatments including singletree selection, group selection and variable retention to maintain caribou habitat(Section 6.4). Snag recruitment should be increased.

The following is a summary of the methods to review and plan stands for caribou habitatrecruitment:

Planning and Assessment Process for Caribou Habitat Recruitment (CHR)treatments:1. Determine if the landscape and subunit area proposed for treatment is a high priority

area for caribou habitat management.2. Identify vertical and horizontal corridors spatially.3. Identify planned harvesting in the area (Forest Development Plan maps).4. Prepare a list of all openings within the identified corridors using the following

criteria: stands over 20 years old, with more than 3,500 total trees/ha.5. Identify other opportunities for treatment (i.e., older stands originating from a fire or

other catastrophic events).6. Evaluate stands using the ranking guide.7. Conduct a field review to confirm priorities.8. Prepare a plan for silviculture treatments within the drainage or subunit.9. Within the high priority stands, rank for treatment over the next five years based on

stand attributes and available funding.

13

10. Prepare Stand Management Prescriptions (SMPs) for spacing, pruning and otherincremental activities.

11. Prepare Silviculture Prescriptions (SP) for commercial thinning and harvestingoperations.

11. Conduct a Pre-Stand Tending Survey, or other appropriate field assessment for unitsplanned for treatment, and implement.

4.2 Silviculture Treatments for Second Growth StandsThe following is a list of silvicultural treatments that may be appropriate for recruitingcaribou habitat. For further information to prepare silviculture and stand managementprescriptions, refer to the list of reference material in Appendix H.

Summary of Stand Management Strategies:1. Conserve existing stand attributes at harvest related to caribou habitat, such as

snags, large live trees and advanced regeneration.2. Minimize site preparation, plant widely spaced trees (400-500/ha), and allow

natural regeneration of western hemlock, western red cedar and deciduous species.3. Create snags with branches to increase habitat for lichen development.4. Use spacing to shorten the competitive exclusion stage. Early spacing is preferred

(<40 yrs). This could speed up the development of large canopies and clumpy treedistribution.

5. Use a combination of spacing and commercial thinning.6. Create heterogeneity with less uniform spacing (use a range of densities based on

the landscape objectives).7. Maintain shade tolerant advanced regeneration species.

4.2.1 Espacement and Species Selection

Plantation espacement in BC since 1940 has ranged from about 2 m (2500 trees/ha) to 4m inter tree spacing (625 trees/ha) (Guidelines for Developing Stand DensityManagement Regimes 1999). Espacement affects site utilization and volume productionfor timber.

The desired clumpy and uneven tree distribution for caribou habitat may lead to reducedinitial planting densities, and consequently reduced stocking at free growing. A range ofinitial planting densities and different patterns (clumps) should be considered. (Thereshould not be an automatic conclusion that timber quantity will be affected. Modellingand analysis can be conducted to further explore the timber quality and quantityimplications.)

Species preference for reforestation should consider the growing environment that theseedlings will encounter. In small patches, it is important to match the species to therange in light levels found in partial cuts or clumpy densities. It is also important torecognize that in the ICH caribou habitat, there is usually a high percentage of westernhemlock followed by western red cedar. Therefore, it is important to ensure that these

14

species are included in the prescribed mix. In the ESSF, subalpine fir is a preferredspecies for lichen forage production. Therefore, it is important to encourage a percentageof subalpine fir in conjunction with spruce and mountain hemlock where appropriate.

4.2.2 Spacing

Stand treatments need to address stand succession over time, recognizing that youngerstands are not expected to function as caribou habitat, but may provide more suitableopportunities for caribou habitat to develop. Objectives of initial spacing are toaccelerate the development of old-growth characteristics. As described in Section 3.3,there is potential to mimic, and suggest the capacity of, old growth forests by managingfor the diversity, structure and function needed by late-succession dependent wildlife(Carey et al 1996; Bailey 1996).

Spacing is an important tool in managing dense young stands to create or enhance diversestructures typical of older forests: larger trees growing faster, reduced mortality in smalldiameter classes, larger crowns on residual trees, and better opportunities for intermediateand understorey growth below the main canopy (Bailey 1996). Site specific and stand-age specific prescriptions with differing optimal spacing and stand attributes will varyacross the district with elevation, topographic position, aspect and time.

Early spacing (<40 yrs) provides the best opportunity to maintain large crown ratios andrapid growth rates. Managers can create stand spatial heterogeneity with heavier and/orless uniform thinning. Thinnings to promote old-growth characteristics should favourshade tolerant advanced regeneration, given its potential to contribute to a multi-storiedcanopy (Bailey 1996). It is important to vary the intensity and arrangement of spacing toprovide more old-growth habitat over time and across the landscape. See Figure 4.

The optimum early densities for recruiting caribou habitat to achieve eventual old-growthattributes are not known. Therefore, it is important to try a range of spacing densities anddistribution and monitor over time for effectiveness. Multi-storied stands with gaps, andvariable densities with wide, long crowns are desirable; therefore, relatively wide spacingand clumpy distribution is recommended. Spacing for caribou habitat recruitmentshould also address the following desired features:

Snags/ large live wildlife trees – Retain where feasible, it may be necessary to establishreserves around these for safety reasons. Recruit where possible, by girdling, inoculation,etc.

Vertical Structure of the Stand – The relative heights and varied canopy levels shouldbe retained and encouraged to develop.

Horizontal Structure – Maintain a variety of stocking levels to provide forageopportunities and shelter. Wide, open spacing will encourage lichen growth. Densethickets will reduce sight lines. Consider retaining clumps during spacing to achieve adiverse horizontal structure.

15

Forest Health – Armillaria is prevalent throughout the ICH. Where Armillaria is notedwithin a stand, take appropriate action for forest health purposes and recognize that thiscondition will help to create natural clumpiness.

Clumpy Spacing – “The goal of clumpy spacing is to use the growing space fully andobtain timber volumes similar to those achieved by standard spacing on similar sites.Clumpy spacing prescriptions can result in a wide range of post-treatment densities,which will vary according to pre-treatment stand structure, the prescription, and thecontract specifications.” (Armleder 1999). In Extension Note # 32 (Armleder 1999),there are recommendations for planning for clumpy spacing, and suggestions forcontractual clauses to carry out the work in the field. It is important to monitor andcompare clumpy spacing with the results of standard spacing.

16

Figure 4. Perspective view of a spaced stand in which attributes that supportbiodiversity are maintained or enhanced (Taken from Guidelines forMaintaining Biodiversity during Juvenile Spacing, 1993)

For further information on spacing, refer to the Forest Practices Code Guidebook forSpacing (1995) as well as Guidelines for Maintaining Biodiversity During JuvenileSpacing (1993).

17

4.2.3 Pruning

Pruning improves stand and forest values by: reducing the size of knotty core andincreasing clear wood production; improving wood quality; increasing log value;reducing stem taper; and reducing white pine blister rust. (FPC Pruning Guidebook1995).

Pruning can also be used to reduce increase sight lines by pruning a percentage of thestems within a spaced stand. If the spacing regime includes leaving clumps of trees,pruning those trees on the edge of the clumps is suggested. Refer to the FPC PruningGuidebook (1995) for further information.

Pruning must be included in the prescription where special management areas for caribouhabitat recruitment include spacing densities that are at least 30% lower than theminimum stocking level specified in the Establishment to Free Growing Guidebook.

4.2.4 Commercial Thinning

Depending on tree size and thinning intensity, commercial thinning can create relativelylarge holes in the stand canopy that are reoccupied slowly by the crowns of the leavetrees. In Europe it is common practice to conduct a series of frequent, light, lowthinnings, intended to capture the wood that would be lost to mortality if untreated.Developing Stand Density Management Regimes (1999) states that commercial thinningis not likely to produce extra volume, unless a regime of frequent, light (5% removal)entries is implemented. It will provide an earlier interim harvest by removing woodsooner, but may also delay the final harvest.

Commercial thinning has the potential to move the stand towards developing more old-growth attributes by increasing the diameters, and possibly limbiness of the remainingtrees. However, it will be important to either retain or possibly create snags throughgirdling to recruit caribou habitat. It will probably be necessary to extend the rotation ageto 130 years or greater in order for these attributes to fully develop. Where long-termretention of caribou habitat is required, it may be necessary to move the stand towardsuneven-aged management to retain mature forest cover on the site.

If commercial thinning is anticipated for a stand, it must be planned for, and a suitablenumber of stems left after spacing to allow for the interim harvest. For example, if 500Douglas fir stems/ha would be left with no commercial thinning planned, 800 to 1100stems/ha after spacing may be appropriate where a subsequent commercial thinning isplanned.

4.3 Setting Standards for Establishment to Free Growing and for Second GrowthStands (Post-Free Growing)

The Establishment to Free Growing Guidelines recommend stocking standards by siteseries based on even-aged management of forests with standard stem distribution. Whenclumpy distributions are proposed, or when management objectives are for wildlifehabitat, the District Manager can justifiably accept standards that differ from thoserecommended in the Guidebook.

18

Prescribing foresters are encouraged to provide a rationale when proposing standards thatdiffer from the guidelines. In addition, local MoF and MELP staff should be consulted asthe proposed standards are being developed, to further provide justification for theproposed standards.

There is often concern that if the proposed standards deviate from those recommended inthe guidebooks, there would be a negative impact on timber supply. If this is a concernfor the treatments proposed for caribou habitat recruitment, an analysis of timber supplyimpact should be conducted. The MoF Forest Practices Branch can provide additionalguidance on the need for such an analysis, particularly if a Silviculture Strategy has notalready considered the timber supply impact.

Maximum density may be an issue when managing for caribou habitat recruitment. Thestandard default maximum of 10,000 stems per hectare can be modified if themanagement objectives are for partial cutting, wildlife habitat, or successionmanagement. The intent of the stand density policy is to encourage licensees to avoidcreating undesirable high density stands through improper silviculture treatments.

For information on density management see:http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/pubs/stand%5Fdensity%5Fmgt/maxchng2.htm

For a copy of the Chief Forester’s policy on stand density management see:http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/manuals/policy/resmngmt/rm2-24.htm

The following has been taken from the Chief Foresters Policy 2.24, as shown on theabove website:

How to deal with density management practices on special areas:There may be areas within a management unit that require analysis, evaluation, andselection of stand density management regimes that differ from the stand and forest levelprocess outlined in the Guidelines.Wildlife habitat - consider appropriate wildlife habitat guidance (e.g., guidelines formanaging Goshawk, Woodpecker, Mule deer, Caribou, Elk, Grizzly Bear) to developdensity management regimes. Any areas that are identified as Wildlife Habitat Areas orSpecial Management Zones may need to be separately evaluated to select a stand densitymanagement regime that adequately maintains or produces desired wildlife habitatconditions.Partial cutting - for partial cutting in mixed species and all-aged stands, densitymanagement regimes should be developed using best available information anddiscussion with subject matter experts.Landscape level forest succession - there may be opportunities to use stand densitymanagement to achieve old growth stand structure objectives. Where there are successionimbalances or limitations in the management unit, density management regimes may bedeveloped that contribute to landscape level objectives.

19

Table 3. Stand densities for specific wildlife habitat for even-aged systems. Note:New Caribou Habitat guidelines are proposed below. (FPC Spacing Guidebook 1995)

ManagementGoals

MaximumDensity (sph)(pre-thining,

countable treese)

Target StockingStandard (sph)(well spaced)

Maximum postspacing density

(sph)(well spaced)

Minimum post-spacing density

(sph) (wellspaced)

Sawlogs – andGrizzly BearHabitat (BCCoast)a

TSSb+ 100 sph 400 – 600c TSS + 600 sph TSS minus 100sph

Sawlogs –deer andElk – coast.d

600 500 600 400

Sawlog – Caribouhabitat – ColumbiaMountainsd

TSS + 1000 500 – 1200 TSS + 200 400

a, d Taken from the Forest Practices Code- Spacing Guidebook, (1995). Guideline 7. b TSS = Target Stocking Standard (is usually 1200 sph depending on BEC site series)c Precise target is dependent on the site seriesd Proposed standards for discussion purposes only (need to be verified).e Whether a tree is countable or not is referenced to the median height of the well spaced preferred andacceptable trees. (For example, if the average well spaced tree height is 5 m+ , then the minimum heightfor a tree to be countable is 1 m; this height decreases with average stand height. For uneven-aged singletree selection systems, the minimum countable height is 1.3 m (Silviculture Surveys Guidebook 1995))

Within caribou habitat recruitment areas, it is appropriate to carefully consider thepreferred and acceptable trees that you use in either the Silviculture Prescription (SP) orStand Management Prescription (SMP). Late seral species should be consideredpreferred, along with a mix of early seral species. Preferred and acceptable species areusually selected from the Establishment to Free Growing Guidebook list of primary,secondary and tertiary species, which are listed by site series.

4.4 Silviculture Treatments to Maintain Caribou Habitat in Old GrowthThe predominate silvicultural system within the Revelstoke portion of the ColumbiaForest District is clear-cutting. There are many biological and economic reasons to usethis system. However, there may be opportunities within caribou habitat to modifytreatments to retain some old-growth structural legacies within stands. This providesflexibility for future passes and retains wildlife habitat within the ESSF and ICH.

It is more appropriate to try to mimic natural processes as much as possible whenconducting initial harvesting operations. By retaining some of the original standstructure, it will be cheaper and easier to work towards better managing for habitat in thefuture. This includes retaining wildlife tree patches, advanced regeneration and snags,and any non-merchantable (and sometimes merchantable material) where technicallyfeasible.

A percentage of the new harvesting within caribou habitat should leave all residuals andpoor quality stems (any diameter) to reduce the slash loading. Where feasible, leavestems that have little to no merchantable value (more appropriate in conventional ground-based harvest systems). These may serve as lichen inoculation, could provide some of

20

the desired diseased and damaged trees (i.e., to form future snags), may release and formfuture crop trees, and will provide existing and future vertical structure.

Within the ICH, commercial thinning and uneven-aged management has the potential tomaintain caribou habitat while permitting some timber extraction. Unfortunately this isnot formally recognized in the Land Use Plan. However, where there are appropriatestand ages and structures, using single-tree selection, group selection and commercialthinning to promote late seral stand structure is appropriate and should be encouraged.

4.4.1 Maintaining Caribou Habitat in the ESSF Old Growth

It is important to retain flexibility when planning silvicultural systems in the ESSFcaribou habitat. As mentioned in Section 1.2, the ESSFvv occupies a narrow elevationband starting at approximately 1620-1650 in areas mapped as ESSFwc2 and ESSFvc.However, it is not delineated due to mapping limitations. The stocking standards for thissubzone are less than that found in the ESSFvc (Land Management Handbook Number23 - see Appendix F).

The Mountain Caribou in Managed Forests program began in 1988 to question if foreststands can be managed, through silvicultural systems and habitat enhancementtechniques, to sustain both timber harvest and caribou habitat in the long term. Theprogram has yielded an excellent report, which is recommended reading for all land usemanagers in caribou habitat. Mountain Caribou in Managed Forests: Recommendationsfor Managers – Second Edition (Stevenson et al. 2001), presently in press, containsnumerous suggestions for management. With the permission of the authors, a section ofthis report is reproduced in Appendix H, which summarizes recommendations forsilvicultural systems for maintaining caribou habitat in ESSF old-growth forests.

In addition to this report, there have been innovative operational trials set up in BlueRiver by Weyerhauser in the Clearwater Forest District, which has timber types andterrain similar to the Revelstoke TSA. Some of the recommendations include:High Elevation ESSF cluster planting – minimum inter-tree spacing should be reduced to1 m to take advantage of raised microsites and to avoid overhead debris and brushy areas.Gaps up to 5 m between tree groupings will be permitted. Retention (depending on siteconditions, varies from 40% to 20-80 sph) – these stems will be left scattered or inclumps through the block where operationally feasible to provide thermal cover and asource of lichen recruitment for caribou. These trees will also function as perching andnesting trees and a source for future snags and coarse woody debris (Beiber 2001).

21

4.5 Prescription Development

4.5.1 Stand Level Decision Tools

Stand level decision-making tools should be used to help analyze the effects of variousstand management treatments, and to assist in rationalizing treatment decisions.However, these tools are limited in scope and have a limited ability to model differenttreatments, especially in complex, mixed species stands. Therefore, their results shouldbe tempered with local knowledge.

Some of the more common models and tools available include:TIPSY – only allows one thinning at height 4 m, with even-aged management.Stand Density Management Diagrams (SDMDs) – graphs of relationships between topheight, mean diameter, stem density and mean volume per trees, as stands develop fromvarious establishment densities.PROGNOSIS – not well calibrated for the ICHwk and ESSFvc; however, allows evenand uneven-aged management, models mixed species and permits PCT and CT entries.

Refer to Appendix I for a table listing other stand level decision support tools.

4.5.2 Prescriptions

Stand Management Prescriptions (SMPs) and Silviculture Prescriptions (SPs) are legallyrequired for treatments. SMPs cover all post free growing treatments such as spacing andpruning, whereas an SP is required for commercial thinning and any harvesting. It isimportant to rationalize the chosen silviculture treatments. The long-term objectivesshould be clearly stated, including quantifiable stand structural objectives, rotation age,number of planned entries, etc., as this is the only way that the prescription can beeffectively evaluated years later.

It is important to build flexibility into the prescription, with the option to amend theprescription as new and better information becomes available.

A new MOF SMP form is available to address non timber objectives. It is meant forriparian management zones; however, it can probably be easily adapted to caribou habitatrecruitment prescriptions.

5.0 Methodology for Ranking Stands for Caribou Habitat Recruitmentin the Revelstoke TSA

This section is divided into three levels of scale: landscape, drainage, and stand levelcriteria.

The following maps and references were used to assist with ranking (Appendix D):• Caribou Locations and Census Map, 1999. 1:250,000.• Ministers Advisory Committee Composite Map, 1999. 1:250,000.• Topographic map (100 m contours).• Map of the Revelstoke TSA with Forest Stand Age, 1996. 1:150,000.• Biogeoclimatic Units of Columbia Forest District, 1999. 1:250,000.• Overlay of Priorities for Caribou habitat recruitment based on ranking criteria.

22

The following sections list the ranking criteria and the rationale used to identify andpriorize second growth stands for treatment feasibility for recruitment of caribou habitat.

5.1 Landscape Level CriteriaThe Revelstoke and Area Land Use Planning Minister’s Advisory CommitteeRecommendations determine the present management options in caribou habitat (SeeAppendix A). The proposed criteria below are derived directly from the MAC planmapped caribou areas, and caribou management guidelines.

1st Priority – MAC Plan – Caribou Habitat – Managed to Guidelines (currentimmature stands): Potential caribou habitat in presently immature stands.

2nd Priority – MAC Current Habitat – Manage to Guidelines: Maintain connectivitybetween fragmented areas within the current caribou habitat zone.

3rd Priority – MAC Caribou Habitat – Manage to Intermediate Biodiversity: Thisarea is a lower priority for recruitment because the retention guidelines arereduced; hence it is assumed that they are not as important.

With limited funds, post free growing activities should focus on the first and secondpriority areas.

5.2 Drainage (Subunit) Level CriteriaThe following criteria are proposed for ranking drainages within the above listed cariboumanagement areas. These criteria are listed in their perceived order of importance:

1. Connectivity between valuable habitats should be maintained and improved to tryto rejoin subpopulations where feasible in strategic locations.1a) Degree of Present Fragmentation.

1st priority – The area from Revelstoke north to the Goldstream: wherereservoir, powerlines etc. have resulted in extensive fragmentation withinCaribou habitat. Calf recruitment is down in this area, and this populationneeds the most intervention now.

2nd priority – North of the Goldstream: This area has not as yet been asheavily impacted. It is more important to ensure that new cuts are “Cariboufriendly”.

1b) Implications of Not Treating: For example, if densely stocked second growthis blocking off more than 50% of movement through existing habitat, it maybecome a high priority for treatment.

2. Age Class Distribution. While older stands are more suitable for treatment, it ismore important at this scale to give priority to areas with a range of the followingage classes: 50 years +, 40-50 yrs, and < 40 years. Such a distribution contributesto landscape biodiversity and provides options to influence a variety of stands.

3. Terrain – Gentler, contiguous terrain is preferred to steeper. Slopes less than40% are preferred habitat, although the MAC guidelines say that caribou habitatincludes slopes up to 80%.

4. Conflicting Use – Areas with high levels of motorized recreation, such assnowmobile use and potentially heavily used heliski areas, may be a lowerpriority for treatment. This includes Frisby Ridge, Sale Mountain, and may

23

include the Keystone area in the future. If there are any known areas whereproposed development may interfere with caribou use, such areas may be a lowerpriority.

5. Planned Harvesting Development – Proposed habitat treatments must be tied tothe forest development plans for future harvesting and road building. In somecases, new roads may increase access in areas that were previously lower prioritydue to lack of access. In other cases, planned harvesting that will provideadditional fragmentation to the area may change the priorities for treatment.

6. Past and Future Silviculture Activities- Past spacing and pruning operationsshould be identified in relation to caribou habitat to evaluate their current orpotential recruitment value and determine if additional treatments might enhanceexisting recruitment. It may be appropriate to modify planned silviculturalactivities to ensure that they achieve caribou recruitment goals as well assilvicultural goals. Silvicultural activities will need to be strategically planned todeal with landscape level issues, such as projected timber supply shortages.

7. Adjacent to National Park/Protected Area – These areas may be higher priorityfor treatment to recruit habitat to help maintain the herd that seasonally uses theparks.

8. Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) Presently the ICH is viewed asa higher priority for recruitment treatment because it has been more fragmentedthan the ESSF. Using the BEC subzone to rank the value of caribou habitatrecruitment silvicultural treatments may be appropriate:ICHmw3>ICHwk1>ICHvk>ESSF.

5.2.1 Landscape and Drainage Level Priorities

Each drainage or major area should be evaluated in terms of past development,silviculture history, connectivity, caribou use and future concerns. Evaluation of theareas listed below should follow this approach. It is also important to evaluate the standcharacteristics to establish the potential for treatment. This requires site historyinformation as well as field reviews and surveys. It is also important to spatially identifyvertical and horizontal “corridors” or “proposed recruitment” areas. This should be donein conjunction with a Ministry of Environment wildlife specialist. If this is not done, it isdifficult to determine the best place to spend silviculture funds to recruit habitat.

Based on the criteria listed in Section 4.1 and 4.2, the following is a list of general areaswithin the Revelstoke TSA north of Revelstoke that would be appropriate for caribouhabitat recruitment, following the criteria listed in the previous sections.

The following areas are identified on the map (Appendix D).

First Priority:� Near Mount Revelstoke/Sale Mountain/Mars Basin (east side of Lake Revelstoke

reservoir), Tangiers and Woolsey drainages.� North of Downie River along Lake Revelstoke.� South face of Mount Revelstoke.� Lookout Mountain area.

24

Second Priority:� West side of Lake Revelstoke Reservoir – North of Jordan River to Big Eddy, and

Big Eddy to Kirbyville.� North of the Goldstream – The priority for treatment in this area is expected to

increase with time. There is a significant amount of private land (Beaumount TreeFarm), which has been heavily harvested in the past. The private land is a highpriority for treatment.

� Other areas that were identified as a high priority are Nichol Creek and Bench Roadareas.

5.3 Stand Level CriteriaThe following is a list of criteria to be considered when evaluating individual stands forsilviculture treatment. The weighting of these criteria will change, depending on theobjectives for the treatment and the stand age.

1. Existing stand structure:a. Densely stocked stands are a high priority for treatment (3500 total sph

or greater suggested).b. Complex vertical structure is a higher priority for treatment than

simple structure, as silviculture treatment can add to the existingattributes.

c. Crown closure (prefer 30 – 50%; depends on stand age).d. Stocking distribution: stands with an existing clumpy distribution may

be a higher priority for treatment as silviculture treatment can add tothe existing attributes.

2. Age Class: This assumes that older stands are more suitable for treatment.This reduces the risk and long time period to determine if the silviculturalintervention is successful. Ideally, trials should cover the range of age classesthat can effectively be treated.

i. 1st Priority – 50 years + ii. 2nd Priority – 40-50 yrs iii. 3rd Priority - < 40 years (It may be appropriate to thin out

corridors to permit travel – 200 m wide vertical corridors).

3. BEC (site series) for both the ICH and ESSF: the first priority for treatmentare submesic to xeric sites. Second priority are mesic, and lower priority aresubhygric and wetter. In the ICH, the drier sites are rated as a higher priorityfor treatment due to falsebox and lichen ecology (Section 2.3). In the ESSF, itwas noted in Section 2.1 that during late winter, caribou prefer low canopyclosure, usually attributed to low site productivity (Apps et al,in press).

4. Potential for lichen production: the proximity of the stand to old growth, fora lichen source may be a factor in determining its priority for treatment. Windis the primary mode of dispersal for both Bryoria and Alectoria. Lichenestablishment and dispersal rates have been observed to be higher at or near

25

residual trees or wildlife tree reserves. However, it has also been observedthat lichen substrate is more critical than lichen dispersal, and the dispersal ofBryoria spp is not limiting (Quesnel and Waters, 2001). Well-ventilated sitesmay also be preferred for treatment, because increased ventilation allows thedevelopment of very high lichen biomass.

5. Accessibility: roaded access into the area for silviculture treatments is ahigher priority than areas with no access, owing to increased costs when roadaccess is not available.

6. Terrain: < 40% slopes have higher priority than steeper slopes as these arefavoured caribou habitat.

7. Timber Supply Review: it may be appropriate to rank silviculture treatmentsbased on predicted shortfalls in the timber supply. For example, pre-commercial thinning or spacing can set up a stand for future economicalcommercial thinning.

Refer to Appendix I for two “Stand Level Ranking Guides”, one for stands less than 50years, and one for stands greater than 50 years. These simplified guidelines can be usedto help evaluate a stand’s potential for caribou habitat recruitment treatment. It isimportant to consider the factors, and modify them as necessary with local experience. Intheir present form they represent both subzones, however, it may be appropriate tomodify them for the ICH or the ESSF subzones.

These guidelines will require further review and field verification to ensure that thecriteria and ranking are appropriate. They should be used as a tool for ranking stands andprompting foresters to consider the various factors when evaluating a stand, and torationalize decisions and clearly state the stand structural objectives.

6.0 Keystone Area Case Study

The Keystone face was chosen as a case study because it is already heavily fragmented.Within the Keystone area, Revelstoke Community Forest Corporation (RCFC) has triedinnovative silviculture prescriptions in the past, and have identified Mature ForestRetention Areas (MFRAs) to address caribou, biodiversity and ungulate winter rangeissues. These MFRA provide vertical and horizontal linkages. A key consideration whenplanning and priorizing treatments and stands is to understand where future developmentand reserves will be located. RCFC will consider alternative silvicultural systems toenhance wildlife habitat between these MFRAs.

This area has been heavily cut over and is currently in a timber deficit for old and maturetargets within the identified caribou habitat. The first partial cutting trial (KeystoneGroup Selection) that was completed by the Small Business Forest Enterprise Program inthis area in 1995 is being monitored for windthrow and has been monitored for lichendispersal.

26

There is a range of second growth stand ages and complexity. RCFC has completedsome spacing and pruning in the area and plan future silviculture work. This area will beused as a pilot project for assessing other areas.

This case study uses the suggested ranking methods and recommended silviculturetreatments to manage more effectively for caribou habitat. This process has narroweddown the areas that should be field reviewed to see if they should be treated (AppendixE).

7.0 Adaptive Management Framework for Caribou HabitatRecruitment in the Revelstoke TSA

The intent in using an adaptive management approach for managing caribou habitat is toevaluate results of different silviculture treatments and apply the knowledge gained to thenext projects. It is important to set up a process for implementing and monitoring thesuccess of operational silviculture trials for caribou habitat recruitment now. This willensure that we have some answers as it becomes increasingly urgent to address theseissues over the next few decades. The management solutions can then be based onimproved knowledge of caribou movement, habitat uses, and results of a range ofpotential silvicultural treatments, which have been designed to provide good caribouhabitat as well as address the timber supply issues of volume and wood quality.

If carefully planned and implemented, an adaptive management approach to recruitcaribou habitat will provide the information necessary to address these issues much fasterthan relying solely on research.

7.1 Definition of Adaptive Management“Adaptive management is a systematic process for continually improving managementpolicies and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs. In its mosteffective form, “active” adaptive management employs management programs that aredesigned to experimentally compare selected policies or practices, by evaluatingalternative hypotheses about the systems being managed.” (MOF Websitehttp://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/amhome.htm).

Some of the differentiating characteristics of adaptive management are:1. Acknowledgement of uncertainty about what practice is “best” for the

particular management issue;2. Thoughtful selection of the practices to be applied;3. Careful implementation of a plan of action designed to reveal the critical

knowledge that is currently lacking;4. Monitoring of key response indicators;5. Analysis of the management outcomes in consideration of the original

objectives; and6. Incorporation of the results into future decisions. (MOF Website

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HFP/AMHOME/Amhome.htm)

27

7.2 Steps to initiate and set up adaptive management for caribou habitatrecruitment

7.2.1 Problem Assessment

The need to identify, improve and recruit habitat for mountain caribou has been identifiedby wildlife managers in the face of low population numbers and ongoing harvesting ofold-growth forests on which this species depends. The information synthesized in thisreport serves as a starting point from which specific management objectives for caribouhabitat recruitment have been identified.

Overall goals:1. Maintain and supplement the 40% retention target for mature and old forests

in caribou management areas (as laid out in the MAC plan) over time toensure a sustainable supply of habitat for the future.

2. Increase use of late seral second growth forests by mountain caribou forforage and cover habitat in the Revelstoke TSA.

Management objectives:1. Mimic attributes of late seral stands favorable to caribou in second growth

forests using silviculture techniques (i.e., open forests with large trees andcomplex structure).

2. Accelerate the development of suitable connectivity habitat for caribou insecond growth forests to facilitate movement between foraging habitats andpredator avoidance.

3. Increase the amount of available lichen for caribou in second growth forests.

Important: While trying to create or recruit caribou habitat it is critical to minimize thecreation of good habitat for other ungulate species such as deer and moose at the sametime. The intent is to avoid attracting predators such as wolves, cougars and bears to thecaribou recruitment areas and thereby decrease the risk of opportunistic predation ofcaribou by these carnivores.

7.2.2 Design of management plan and operational trials

The trials should be designed to test the alternative management actions proposed in theproblem assessment phase. Ideally, two or three alternative silviculture treatments shouldbe evaluated in the study, which will give some useful information but keep associatedcosts at a reasonable level. The different proposed treatments to recruit caribou habitatshould be assessed in a carefully laid out ‘management experiment’ (Taylor et al. 1997).Each of the treatments should be replicated on the landscape (3 replicates is a good targetfor statistical validity) and have associated untreated controls.

Ideally the entire trial could be replicated in several locations in the Revelstoke TSA toassess the success of silviculture treatments in different BEC subzones. Thismanagement experiment differs from research in that the treatments will be done on an

28

operational scale in an operational setting, and forest managers will have input as to whatsilviculture treatments will be assessed. This is a critical step in the proposed management scheme, and due time and resourcesshould be given to plan the management experiment to ensure that the information gainedfrom this trial will be statistically valid and useful in managing caribou habitat. It iscrucial to keep relevant managers, licensees and Ministries staff (MELP and MoF)informed and involved in the planning and implementation of the managementexperiment to ensure the success and communication of the project.

7.2.3 Implementation of management experiment

In this phase the management experiment is implemented on the landscape. Goodcommunication is essential between those that design the management experiment andthe operators, contractors and other people ‘on the ground’ that are going to carry out thesilviculture treatments. Care must be taken to ensure that the replicates of each treatmentare as consistent as possible with regard to the resulting stand structure.

7.2.4 Monitoring

Monitoring of the management experiment over time is a key element in the adaptivemanagement process. Typically this is the stage that gets neglected in standardoperational trials. The monitoring scheme should be set up to provide useful informationthat will specifically address the management objectives laid out for caribou habitatrecruitment. In general, monitoring should be focused on providing answers for the bigmanagement questions, and detailed data collection is left for applied research trials.

Key Steps in Setting up Monitoring Program for Caribou Habitat Recruitment

• Identify indicators that can be monitored to determine success of silviculturetreatments (from workshop)

Suggestions:• Changes in lichen biomass and availability• Falsebox cover and quality• Canopy closure• Caribou foraging• Desired stand structural attributes• Timber production

• Determine how data will be collected (modified silviculture survey)• Determine frequency of monitoring (establishment, 5 years, then every 10

years)• Establish accessible database (or use existing one) for collected data• Identify central agency responsible for collecting and maintaining records of

caribou habitat recruitment trials (MELP, MOF)

29

The data collected in the monitoring program should be entered into a databaseestablished just for caribou habitat projects. Ideally, this database should be accessibleby all licensees and government agencies in the Revelstoke TSA. The database wouldprovide information as to the location and current status of all blocks in the managementtrials.

7.2.5 Evaluation

In this phase the data collected during monitoring is analyzed. The results are thenrelated back to the management objectives and expected outcomes forecasted in theproblem assessment phase. The evaluation should include explanations of the results. Inadaptive management it is important to recognize that negative or unexpected results canprovide just as much information as those that are considered successes.

7.2.6 Adjustment of plan and practices based on new information

In this phase the original assumptions and hypotheses are adjusted using the newinformation gained in the management experiment. This in turn will result in changes inmanagement practices to recruit caribou habitat and possibly may lead to newmanagement experiments.

8.0 Research and Decision Support NeedsResearch into the ecology of caribou and their habitat requirements is a vital componentin the adaptive management scheme for caribou habitat recruitment. Applied researchshould be conducted concurrently with any management experiments dealing with thisissue. Information provided by research is used to refine management objectives andreduce the risk associated with the key gaps in knowledge of caribou and their habitat.

The following is a list of research and modeling needs to address identified gaps inknowledge (some of these studies have been initiated already):

� Caribou ecology- microhabitat requirements and foraging patterns, use GPS collars to track

caribou continuously- effect of landscape patterns on habitat use, can we ‘create’ contiguous

suitable habitat?- effect of habitat recruitment activities on populations of other ungulate

species and predators (is there increased predation of caribou in treatedstands?)

- factors affecting caribou calf survival in spring habitat- habitat supply modeling using SIMFOR or other similar model

30

� Old growth- develop an Old-Growthness Index as it relates to caribou habitat for the

ICHmw3, wk, vk and the ESSFvc, vv and wc4.- assessment of caribou reserves in Revelstoke area to determine proportion

of those areas that provide good caribou habitat

� Lichen- modeling and tracking of future lichen growth in treated second growth

stands- enhancing lichen growth in young stands- impact of more open stand structure on lichen growth

� Stand development- retrospective studies to identify stand development patterns- modeling of stand development over time with alternative silvicultural

interventions for caribou habitat recruitment

� Stocking Standards re-evaluation – model different stocking standards at differentstand ages and determine the impact on the timber supply. Determine futurevolume and value considerations in relation to timber supply.

� Spacing and pruning- retrospective studies looking at results of these activitiescompleted in the past to determine how they are meeting historical or currentsilviculture objectives. Track understory response.

� Falsebox ecology – although there is considerable information about falseboxecology, there should be some further work conducted on falsebox growth,management, palatability, etc., by BEC subzone and canopy closure.

8.1 Research and extension databasesProvincial research and extension databases can provide information about current andongoing research, as well as published papers and reports on mountain caribou and theirhabitat.

Natural Resources Information Network (NRIN) – searchable web based research andextension database developed and maintained by the Southern Interior Forest Extensionand Research Partnership (SIFERP) that should be available by 2002.http://www.siferp.org/NRIN/

Adaptive Management Database – funding has been applied for by the MoF toestablish a database for all Adaptive Management (AM) Projects in B.C. Currentinformation on the status of the database can be obtained by contacting the Ministry ofForests manager of Adaptive Forest Management.http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/am_contacts.htm

31

8.2 ExtensionResults and information from caribou habitat recruitment projects can be disseminatedthrough reports, workshops, meetings, courses, etc. Some organizations that can facilitatesuch information extension:

Columbia Mountains Institute of Applied Ecology (CMI) http://www.cmiae.org/

Forest Management Institute of B.C (FMIBC) http://www.fmibc.org/index.shmtl

32

9.0 Recommended ActionThe following is a proposed action plan.Year Work to be done Suggested Silviculture Treatments2001 1. Conduct retrospective study on past spacing, pruning and alternative silviculture

treatments to determine extent of existing managed stands that may provide situationsfor caribou habitat recruitment. Stands with potential should be included in themonitoring plan.

2. Conduct adaptive management workshop (1-2 days) to develop overall managementplan and objectives for caribou habitat recruitment.

3. Review backlog sites for potential treatment.4. Review planned 2001/02 enhanced forestry projects for potential sites.5. Develop a Habitat Silviculture Plan (5-10 year plan) as part of the Resource

Management Plan/Regional Investment Plan, including “studies” and monitoring tosupport the adaptive management approach.

6. Communicate information and research needs to funding partners.

� Study� Plan� Reconsider existing SMPs for CHR silviculture

treatments

2002 1. Conduct assessments and reconnaissances to determine priority areas, identify corridors,field review stands and rank the need for silviculture surveys.

2. Focus on the ICH, survey and lay out treatments and controls for managementexperiments/silviculture trials.

3. Implement projects of the highest priority, to the targets identified in the HabitatSilviculture Plan, as funding permits.

4. Establish monitoring of the implemented projects and any qualifying previously treatedareas, as per retrospective study done in 2001.

5. Develop an extension/communication plan, with activities to pass information on toother parts of the province where caribou are being managed.

� Assessments� SMPs, SPs� PCT Trial – Use three different stand densities (600,

800 and 1000 sph), plus a control. Use two methods ofapplying PCT – uniform and clumped (variable –depending on original stand structure).

� Espacement Trial – reduce planting densities on 2sites.

� Girdling Trial – on an older stand 40-80 yrs, to act asspacing and snag recruitment

2003 1. Monitor treatments and controls conducted in 2002 in the ICH using identified indicatorsto determine if treatments initially meet objectives.

2. Replicate treatments and controls in the ESSF as funding permits.3. Implement additional projects in the ICH as funding permits.

� PCT Trial – Use different densities, uniform andclumped, on 4 blocks.

� CT Trial – Thin from below to recruit late seral standattributes.

� Girdle Trial – In stands aged between 40-80 years, trygirdling techniques to create snags and thin the stand.

2004/2005…

1. Monitor treatments and controls conducted in 2003 in the ESSF using identifiedindicators to determine if treatments initially meet objectives.

2. Based on initial surveys, add 2 more replicates of treatments in other areas in the ICHand ESSF as funding permits.

PCT, CT, STS, Girdle, Espacement

33

References Cited

Armleder, H.H. 1999. Clumpy Spacing – Juvenile Spacing Douglas-fir into Clumps toImitate Natural Stand Structure. Extension Note 32. B.C. Min. For., Victoria, B.C.

Armleder, H.M., M.J. Waterhouse, D.G. Keisker, R.J. Dawson. 1994. Winter habitat useby mule deer in the central interior of British Columbia. Can. J. Zool. 72:ppp-ppp.

Armleder, H.M., R.J. Dawson, R.N. Thomson. 1986. Handbook for Timber and MuleDeer Management Co-ordination on Winter Ranges in the Cariboo Forest Region. B.C.Min. For., Victoria, B.C.

Antifeau, T.D. 1987. Significance of snow and arboreal lichen in the winter ecology ofmountain caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in the north Thompson watershed ofBritish Columbia MSc thesis. University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C.

Apps, C.C., B.N. McLellan, T.A. Kinely and J. Flaa. [2001]. Scale dependent habitatselection by mountain caribou in the Columbia Mountains. B.C. J. Wildl. Manage. Inpress.

Bailey, J.D. 1996. Effects of Stand Density Reduction on Structural Development inWestern Oregon Douglas-fir Forests – A Reconstruction Study PhD thesis. Oregon StateUniversity, Corvallis, Ore.

Beiber, Wes 2000. Personal Communication.

B. C. Min. For. 1995. Forest Practices Code, Biodiversity Guidebook. Victoria, B.C.

Braumandl, T.F., M.P.Curran. 1992. A Field Guide for Site Identification andInterpretation for the Nelson Forest Region. B.C. Min. For. Land Manage. Handbook No.20.

Braumandl, T.F. 2001, Personal Communication.

Campbell, J. & D.S. Cosxon. [2001]. Canopy microclimate and arboreal lichen loading ina subalpine spruce-fir forest. Publication?. In press.

Carey, A.B., & M.L. Johnson. 1995. Small mammals in managed, naturally young andold-growth forests. Ecol. Applications 5:336-352.

Carey, A.B., C. Elliot, B.R. Lippke, J. Sessions, C.J. Chambers, C.D. Oliver, J.K.Franklin, & M.G. Raphael. 1996. Washington Forest Landscape Management Project –A Pragmatic, Ecological Approach to Small-Landscape Management. Washington StateDepartment of Natural Resources. Washington For. Landscape Manage. Project ReportNo. 2.

34

Enns, K.A., J.A. Troyfymow, & D.M. Goodman. 1999. Arboreal lichens in successionalforests on southern Vancouver Island. Information Report BC-X-382. Canadian ForestService, Victoria, B.C.

U.S. Dep. Agric. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fire Effects Information System(online). http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

Goward, T. 1998. Observations on the ecology of the lichen genus Bryoria in highelevation conifer forests. Canadian Field Naturalist. 112:496-501.

Goward, T. [2001]. Observations on the ecology of the lichen genus Bryoria in highelevation conifer forests II. Canadian Field Naturalist. Iin press.

B.C. Min. of For., For. Practices Br. 1999. Guidelines for Developing Stand DensityManagement Regimes. Stand Density Management Working Group, Victoria, B.C.B.C. Ministry of Forests/Canadian Forest Service. Guidelines for MaintainingBiodiversity During Juvenile Spacing. 1993. Canada –BC Partnership Agreement onForest Development Resource Development: FRDA II, Victoria, B.C.

Hanley, T.A., R.G. Cates, B, Van Horne, & J.D. McHendrick. 1987. Forest-stand-agerelated differences in apparent nutritional quality of forage for deer in southeasternAlaska. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-222:9-17.

Hansen, A.J., T.A. Spies, F.J. Swanson, & J.L. Ohmann. 1997. Conserving biodiversityin managed forests – lessons from natural forests. BioScience 41(6):ppp-ppp.

Neitlich, P.N. & B. McCune. 1997. Hotspots of epiphytic lichen diversity in two youngmanaged forests. Conserv. Biol. 11(1):172-182.

McLellan, B.N. & E.L Terry. [2001]. Microhabitat characteristics and winter foragingpatterns by mountain caribou in the North Columbia Mountains, British Columbia. Can.J. Zoology. In press.

Holt, R.F., T.F. Braumandl, & D.J. MacKillop. 1999.An index of old-growthness for twoBEC variants in the Nelson Forest Region. B.C. Min. Environ., Lands and Parks.Victoria, B.C.

Oliver, C.D.1992. A landscape approach – achieving and maintaining biodiversity andeconomic productivity. J. For. Vol:ppp-ppp.

Quesnel, H.J. 1996. Assessment and characterization of old-growth stands in the NelsonForest Region. E.P. 1175.01. TR-013. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br. Victoria, B.C.

Quesnel, H.J. & L.Waters. 2001. Case Study: Patch cutting in old-growth forests tomaintain caribou habitat, 1997-99 research results. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br.EN-054.

35

Rominger, E.M., C.T. Robbins, & M.A. Evans. 1996. Winter foraging ecology ofwoodland caribou in North-Eastern Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 60:719-728.

Rominger, E.M., C.T. Robbins, M.A. Evans, & D.J. Pierce. 2000. Autumn foragingdynamics of woodland caribou in experimentally manipulated habitats, North-EasternWashington, U.S.A. J. Wildl. Manage. 64(10):160-167.

B.C. Min. For. 1999. Revelstoke and Area Land Use Planning – FinalRecommendations.Victoria, B.C.

B.C. Min. For. 1990. Guide to Site Identification and Interpretation for the KamloopsForest Region. Land Management Handbook No. 23. Victoria, B.C.

B.C. Min. For. 1995. Establishment to Free Growing Guidebook, Kamloops ForestRegion. Victoria, B.C.B.C. Min. For. 2000. Establishment to Free Growing Guidebook, Vancouver ForestRegion. Victoria, B.C.

B.C. Min. For. 1995. Silviculture Surveys Guidebook. Victoria, B.C.

B.C. Min. For. 1995. Spacing Guidebook. Victoria, B.C.

Simpson, K., G.P. Woods, & K.P. Hebert. 1985. Critical habitats of caribou (Rangifertarandus caribou) in the mountains of southern BC. Proceedings of the Second NorthAmerican Caribou Workshop. McGill University. Montreal, Quebec.

B.C. Min. For. 2001. Spacing to Increase Diversity within Stands. Victoria, B.C.

Stevenson, S. K., H.M. Armleder, M.J. Jull, D.G. King, B.N. McLellan, & D.S. Coxson.[2000]. Mountain Caribou in Managed Forests: Recommendations for Managers –Second Edition. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, B.C.

Stevenson, S.K. & D.F. Halter. 1985. Woodland Caribou and their Habitat in Southernand Central British Columbia. Report 23. B.C. Min. For., Res. Br. Victoria, B.C.

Terry, E.L., B.N. McLellan, G. Watts & J. Flaa. 2000. Early winter habitat use bymountain caribou in North Cariboo and Columbia Mountains, B.C. Rangifer SpecialIssue 9:133-140.

U.S. Dep. Agric. For. Serv., Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire SciencesLaboratory. 2001. Fire Effects Information System (online).http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/

Van Horne, B., T.A. Hanely, R.G. Cates, J.D. McKendrick, & J.D. Horner. 1988.Influence of seral stage and season on leaf chemistry of southeastern Alaska deerforage. Can. J. For. Res. 18:ppp-ppp.